Evans v. Pringle, 2-81-020-CV
| Decision Date | 27 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-81-020-CV,2-81-020-CV |
| Parties | Lon EVANS, Sheriff of Tarrant County, Texas, Appellant, v. Brantley PRINGLE and Barry G. Johnson, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and C. Chris Marshall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fort Worth, for appellant.
Brantley Pringle, Barry G. Johnson, Fort Worth, for appellees.
Before MASSEY, C. J., and HUGHES and RICHARD L. BROWN, JJ.
The Sheriff of Tarrant County, Texas, the Honorable Lon Evans, has appealed the judgment of permanent injunction preventing him from collecting postjudgment interest from the Brantley Pringle and Barry Johnson sureties on a forfeited bail bond.
Affirmed.
Magless v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 646, 18 S.W.2d 669 (1929) initially held that in instances where there has been decreed forfeiture of a bail bond or recognizance, with a judgment absolute rendered in the action on the forfeited bond or recognizance in the total amount of the bond (it cannot be for more), no interest can be allowed on the penalty from the date of the order of forfeiture. Observed in the opinion is that the judgment on such a bond is a penalty, and that observance and discharge of the liability involved is a punishment. Furthermore, stated at 18 S.W.2d page 670 is the following:
In the most excellent brief for the Sheriff is pointed out that, in view of the action of the court on motion for rehearing, that what was stated in the opinion was not dispositive of the case and so become mere dicta. On rehearing the Court of Criminal Appeals set aside its initial judgment reforming the trial court's judgment so as to delete provision therein for the payment of interest, and, as so reformed, affirmed judgment below for the principal sum. That on which the court made its dispositive judgment was by finding that the bond declared upon did not appear to have been signed by either the principal or the sureties against whom judgment was rendered. It therefore held the evidence insufficient and because of the insufficiency disposed of the case by reversal of the judgment for any amount, with remand of the cause to the trial court.
It is true that the holding initially made in Magless became dicta when it ceased to be dispositive of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailout Bonding Co. v. State, 05-90-00439-CV
...a bond forfeiture to bear postjudgment interest. Magless v. State, 112 Tex.Crim. 646, 18 S.W.2d 669, 670 (1929); Evans v. Pringle, 634 S.W.2d 774, 775 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth), rev'd on other grounds per curiam, 643 S.W.2d 116 (Tex.1982). Two rationales appear to underlie the prohibition of i......
-
Evans v. Pringle
...post-judgment interest from the sureties on forfeited bail bonds. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 634 S.W.2d 774. We grant the application for writ of error, reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the trial court, and order the trial court to dismis......
-
Hughes v. Morgan, 2-91-056-CV
...(it did not) it would have been a void judgment in such respect. A void judgment can be attacked in any court. Evans v. Pringle, 634 S.W.2d 774, 775 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1982) added). We were reversed, per curiam, by the supreme court, Evans v. Pringle, 643 S.W.2d 116 (Tex.1982). The crux ......